On the 2th of November, Mr. Pugachev’s lawyers filed an appeal against the award of the Hague Tribunal made on June 18, 2020

On June 18, 2020, the Hague Tribunal made a ruling based on the hearings held last November in Paris.

The tribunal acknowledged that Mr Pugachev’s status as a legal citizen of France, allows him to rely on the protection of investor rights provided by the Bilateral Investment Treaty between France and Russia, but, nevertheless, this award did not completely suit Mr. Pugachev and on November 2, 2020, his lawyers filed an appeal with the TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DE JUSTICIA DE MADRID.

Given that two arbitrators from the Tribunal panel refused to rule on the part concerning the claim, Mr. Pugachev’s lawyers believe that the award of June 18, 2020 is incomplete and should be amended.

Since, under the procedural terms of the Tribunal, the city of Madrid was designated as the place of arbitration, the appeal was filed with the Spanish court – TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DE JUSTICIA DE MADRID.

An appeal date will be set shortly.

Decision of the last session of the Hague Tribunal on the claim of Sergei Pugachev against the Russian Federation

Today it became known about the decision of the last session of the Hague Tribunal on the claim of Sergei Pugachev against the Russian Federation, which examined the powers of the Tribunal to consider the claim.

The lawsuit against Russia on the basis of the Agreement between the Government of the USSR and the Government of the French Republic on mutual encouragement and mutual protection of capital investments dated July 4, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) in connection with the expropriation by the Russian Federation of Mr Pugachev’s assets was filed by Mr. Pugachev in 2015.

Jurisdiction hearings were held in Paris in November 2019, and the decision became known only today.

Two out of three arbitrators considered that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim.

The Tribunal in its decision recognized many of the arguments of Mr. Pugachev, but unfortunately, deviated from the well established principle in judicial practice according to which the Agreement protects the investor at the time of expropriation, and not at the time of the investment.

One of the arbitrators does not agree with the opinions of the other two and wrote his dissenting opinion, in which he pointed out that the interpretation of citizenship issues by the other two arbitrators is incompatible both with the text of the Agreement itself and with established case law.

This decision does not mean termination of the proceedings of Mr. Pugachev v. Russia.

The decision of the Tribunal will be appealed within the established procedural timelines.

Mr. Pugachev’s lawyers are confident that this decision will be set aside.

Press Service of Sergey Pugachev

Sergei Pugachev, PhD., 56 years old: international investor, public person, politician, MP (senator from 2001 to 2011), citizen of France.

Sergei Pugachev, PhD., 56 years old: international investor, public person, politician, MP (senator from 2001 to 2011), citizen of France.

Born in the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Sergei Pugachev devoted himself to attracting investments to Russia. In the beginning of the 1990s he and his family settled in France.

He founded the very first private bank in Leningrad and was also the founder of one of the largest private investment companies in Russia: the United Industrial Corporation (“OPK”).

During the 1990s he was part of the inner circle of the first President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and in 1996 led Yeltsin’s electoral team to victory.

In 1999 Sergei Pugachev suggested that President Yeltsin appoint as Prime Minister one Vladimir Putin, a perfectly unknown character back then. Later on, when Vladimir Putin ran for president, Pugachev acted as director of Putin’s electoral campaign.

After Putin’s victory in the presidential election of 2000, Pugachev remained for many years President Putin’s chief advisor, while staying largely involved in the international investment business.

Pugachev was a member of the Senate from 2001 to 2011 and played a prominent part in Russian politics, adhering to ultra-liberal views on the economic and social organisation of the Russian State.

Acting as vice-chairman of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) since the year 2000, he advised Vladimir Putin to reform the Union in view of establishing a dialogue between the President of Russia and the owners of Russia’s major private companies. Pugachev also organised the first official meetings between President Putin and the Russian oligarchs. Incidentally, it was after one such meeting that a conflict arose between Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (YUKOS).

In 2011, due to broadening political divergence with Vladimir Putin, Sergei Pugachev was compelled to resign from all State duties and took the decision to liquidate all his Russian assets.

Pugachev had been investing in the Russian economy from the early 1990s and by 2010 he was the sole owner of the investment company United Industrial Corporation (“OPK”), whose overall assets were worth 15 billion US dollars.

Sergei Pugachev practically succeeded in resurrecting the Russian shipbuilding industry, not least by building a mega-shipyard in Saint-Petersburg, which comprised dozens of high-tech shipbuilding and machine-building companies. Pugachev’s shipbuilding corporation built both civil and military vessels, including: ice-class ships used for the development of fossil fuel deposits in the Artic region and offshore; naval ships for India and China; supply vessels for Norway; the world’s largest nuclear icebreaker; the world’s first floating nuclear power plant. For the first time since the Soviet years (1970s) the building of icebreakers in Russia had reached an industrial scale.

It was also on Sergei Pugachev’s personal initiative that his shipyards began to build the French Mistral class helicopter carriers. It was planned to have twenty ships of that class built.

In 2010, following increased pressure on the part of Vladimir Putin, Sergei Pugachev had to sell 100 percent of his share in the shipbuilding assets to the State, at a notably devalued price. At that moment, according to different valuations, Pugachev’s shipbuilding assets were worth c. 7 billion dollars.

Russia, however, failed to stand by its contractual obligations and expropriated the above-mentioned assets with no compensation.

Later Vladimir Putin entrusted the management of the corporation to his close aide, Vice Prime Minister Igor Sechin (who had previously conducted the expropriation of YUKOS).

A large share of Pugachev’s investment activities in Russia pertained to property development (acquiring land and building luxury real estate in Moscow and suburbs as well as in the centre of Petersburg). Several billion dollars were thus invested by Pugachev into purchasing land, in view of carrying out development projects.

The central jewel in this crown of luxury property in the Russian Federation was meant to be a 76.000 sq.m. 5-star hotel on Moscow’s Red Square, opposite the Kremlin. The architectural project was authored by French architect Jean-Michel Wilmotte. President Putin had personally asked Pugachev to undertake the building of a top-luxury hotel on the Red Square.

In the historical centre of Saint-Petersburg, some five minutes away from the Ermitage, about 70 hectares of land were reserved on the bank of the Neva for the building of luxury real estate properties totalling over 4 million sq.m. of floor space.

In order to free the land for this project, Pugachev transferred most of the shipbuilding workshops from the territory of the Baltiysky shipyard to the new mega-shipyard he build in the suburbs of Petersburg, on the former location of Putilov’s historic plants. The entire project was supervised by the then governor of Petersburg Valentina Matvienko (currently speaker of the Russian Parliament), who officially approved a municipal programme aimed at transferring industrial sites from the historical centre of the city to the outskirts. The project was named “New Venice” and the city council even built a metro station next to the former Baltiysky shipyard territory.

Pugachev was also the biggest landowner in the unique and elite district of the Moscow area, on the banks of the Moskva river, where many of the wealthiest people in Russia had some property. This is also the area where Novo-Ogarevo, Vladimir Putin’s residence, is located.

After Pugachev’s conflict with Putin began, all of these projects were either cancelled, or expropriated.

During the 90s Pugachev had invested into the prospection and development of a coal deposit in South Siberia.

By the mid-2000, he had become the owner of the world’s largest deposit of coking coal, a type of fossil fuel widely used in metallurgy.

It was subsequently decided to build a 402 km railroad in the area. This was the biggest railway construction project since the “BAM”, the Baikal-Amur railway. Boris Gryzlov, president of “United Russia”, the party of power, volunteered to supervise the construction.

Pugachev signed a contract with the Japanese corporation Mitsui in order to attract investments and jointly develop the project. Mitsui was thus able to acquire 49% of the Enissei Industrial Company (EPK), which was running the coke production.

By 2010 the capitalisation of EPK reached 5 billion US dollars.

At the end of 2012, however, upon an express order of President Putin, the coal production licence granted to the Enissei Industrial Company was illegally withdrawn. The company was plundered and destroyed, and one and a half billion dollars, earmarked for the development of the coal deposit, were stolen from the company’s bank account.

This is how most of Sergei Pugachev’s assets in the territory of the Russian Federation were expropriated to the benefit of Putin’s inner circle.

For several years Pugachev attempted to challenge in court the illegal actions of the Russian government, and was eventually drawn into an endless judicial intrigue in Russia. The outcome of these legal claims was of course predetermined: Putin had personally supervised the expropriation of Pugachev’s assets and had repeatedly warned Pugachev in public pronouncements of the risks the latter was taking if he continued to fight for his stolen assets.

After Pugachev had announced to Putin that he had no choice but to file a claim before The Hague International Court, the pressure upon him increased manyfold. Some of the top managers of Pugachev’s former companies were illegally sentenced to prison.

A criminal case was fabricated against Pugachev and an international arrest warrant was issued by Interpol. Interpol eventually recognised, however, that the case launched against Pugachev was politically motivated, and officially rejected Russia’s request.

By personal order of President Putin the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA) was appointed to represent the interests of the Russian Federation in the numerous lawsuits against Pugachev worldwide, so as to divert Pugachev’s attention and financial means from The Hague claim.

But Putin did not stop at destroying Pugachev’s economic empire in Russia. He also tried to reach Pugachev’s foreign assets, turning to his advantage Russia’s international connections, having recourse to international organisations, treaties and agreements, and abusing the law.

Specifically, by invoking the agreement on mutual legal assistance signed between Switzerland and the Russian Federation, Russia succeeded in 2013 in freezing Pugachev’s funds deposited in Swiss banks. These funds being set aside for the development of Pugachev’s foreign-based assets, this led to the bankruptcy of a number of Pugachev’s companies outside Russia (among which OPK Biotech, a high-tech American company manufacturing artificial blood of a universal kind, one that did not need any special storage conditions and was suitable for all blood groups; the company had a capitalisation worth 3,5 billion dollars and had patented over 600 inventions.)

The French delicatessen brand Hédiard, also owned by Pugachev, went bankrupt for the same reasons. Hédiard was established in 1854 and, having 320 boutiques worldwide, has been recognised as part of the French heritage: it belonged the Comité Colbert, on the same footing with the Opéra National de Paris, Chanel, Christian Dior or Givenchy.

This also caused the bankruptcy of the Swiss watch-making company owned by Pugachev, which was manufacturing unique watch movements under the Polet brand. Back in Soviet times this legendary Soviet brand (also owned by Pugachev) rivalled Rolex in terms of sales volume. It had become as recognisable a symbol of the USSR as the Bolshoi Theatre, Palekh boxes or caviar.

The Russian State has persecuted Pugachev and is still using disgraceful methods to do so, from legal abuse in foreign courts to assassination attempts. Several attempts on Sergei Pugachev’s life have been made since 2010, and in 2015 SO15, the anti-terrorist section of Scotland Yard, found an explosive device under one of his cars. Thank to efficient collaboration the British and the French special services were able to thwart this attempt.

In 2013, Pugachev had a personal meeting with Vladimir Putin and was able to discuss a potential amicable settlement between the parties, conditional upon the Russian Federation’s paying a compensation for Pugachev’s expropriated assets.

Putin agreed to compensate the losses; lengthy negotiations began, for which Vladimir Putin appointed one of his close aides, a general in the special services, as his official representative.

After one year and a half of talks Vladimir Putin said: “Let him go to court. If he wins, we’ll pay up” (sic).

On 21 September 2015 Sergei Pugachev filed a 12 billion-dollar claim before the Hague International Court against the Russian Federation, based on the international Agreement on Mutual Encouragement and Protection of Investments signed between France and Russia on 4 July 1989.

In 2016 the President of the Hague Court appointed the arbitral tribunal, composed of Eduardo Zuleta Jaramillo (Presiding Arbitrator) and Prof. Thomas Clay and Bernardo Cremades (Arbitrators).

On 10 November 2016 the arbitration tribunal ordered that for reasons of Sergei Pugachev’s personal safety the hearings take place in Paris, instead of The Hague.

The Arbitration tribunal’s first public hearing took place on 13 February 2017 in Paris, on ICC premises.

Pugachev’s struggle against Putin and the Russian state to recover his stolen assets is a unique example of one man’s fortitude in single-handedly resisting an entire state.

According to Pugachev this has already become a full-time job for him. Yet he has trust in his “business model”. He is managing dozens of lawyers worldwide and regularly wins in court against the Russian state, which motivates him to keep on fighting.

In the course of those past years he has faced betrayal, duplicity and baseness from people who once were close to him. He is convinced that Putin holds nothing sacred. The Russians have suborned the mother of his three minor children (aged ten, nine and six), who currently lives in his luxury mansion in Chelsea, London’s most select area. Alexandra Tolstoy-Miloslavsky, Pugachev’s former partner and mother of his children, is kept by the Russian state and, in line with her ensuing obligations, was prepared to provide a false testimony in Pugachev’s case against Russia. When she left France she took the children with her, never to return. Sergei Pugachev has not seen his children, however briefly, for over three years. All these years the children practically have been kept hostage.

Pugachev insists that this legal cause is not his alone; it is neither a personal revenge taken on Putin, nor an attempt to gain money and to get back to the life he once had. He is convinced that this case is to be fought between France and Russia, and that it is about forcing Russia to fulfil its international obligations. All of the foreign companies present in Russia are closely following this case. Pugachev further believes that this is one more area in which the recently elected President Macron can deploy diplomatic action, given that he is currently trying to construct a relationship with the authoritarian leader of Russia.

This is one more opportunity to put an end to Putin’s aggression and impunity on the international arena, not only relatively to Ukraine and other Russian-occupied territories, but more largely by bringing Vladimir Putin before the UN International Court of Justice in The Hague.

This is one more opportunity to remind the world of the validity of international law.

Furthermore, it is a unique opportunity for President Macron to show the citizens of France that they can feel safe and protected wherever they be, in whatever situation, and that they can reasonably be proud of being citizens of the French Republic.

In one of his interviews Pugachev once said that had he been a citizen of the United States, and not of France, Trump would have long ago forced Putin to pay him a compensation for the expropriated assets.

When asked how he intends to use the 12 billion that the Russian Federation is going to pay him, Sergei Pugachev answers that he intends to allocate the major part to charity projects in the field of education, new medical technologies, and also to establish funds to help children deprived of parents.

On 17 March 2017 the Russian Federation requested from the arbitration tribunal that the hearings in the Pugachev case be confidential. This is contrary to the Rules of The Hague Court, yet the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order ordering partial restriction of information disclosure.


The recent Tribunal hearing took place from 12 to 17 November 2019 in Paris. The award is expected early next year.

25 March 2019: the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nice (first instance court) granted the claim filed by former senator Sergei Pugachev against the Russian Federation

On this 25 day of March 2019, the Second Civil Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nice granted the claim filed by former senator Sergei Pugachev against the Russian Federation, represented by the State corporation DIA (Deposit Insurance Agency), and ordered DIA to pay the costs.

Russia has once more attempted to abuse the rule of law in using a foreign jurisdiction to persecute Sergei Pugachev. In 2015 the latter initiated proceedings before the Hague International Court, suing the Russian Federation for the expropriation of his assets in the amount of 12 billion dollars.

In 2015 Mr Pugachev was illegally condemned by the Russian justice to pay over 75 million dollars. The State corporation DIA subsequently filed a claim before the French court, accusing Mr Pugachev of dissimulating his assets in France.

It is widely known that Russia is using its legal system to persecute the regime’s political opponents.

In its decision dated 25 March the French court pointed out that the decision on former senator Pugachev’s subsidiary liability, issued on 30 April 2015, is illegal, as are all the other decisions issued in that case between 2012 and 2016, because the Russian court, contrary to the law, failed to have the case examined by a panel of judges.

Mr Pugachev is convinced that this case was trumped up against him after he filed a claim for 12 billion before the Hague court against Russia. He believes that all the legal proceedings  brought against him by the Russian authorities are politically motivated. Over the course of the past few years, the Russian authorities have filed law suits against the former senator in foreign jurisdictions, on the basis of illegal and politically motivated decisions issued by Russian courts.

Nevertheless, some foreign courts and international organisations, that are not subservient to the Kremlin, have repeatedly refused to persecute Mr Pugachev.  Thus in 2015 the Interpol commission wrote his name off the Interpol register, having established the political nature of the proceedings.

The Second Civil Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nice established that the decision of the Russian court dated 30 April 2015, condemning Mr Pugachev to pay over 75 million dollars, was rendered in blatant violation of the Russian laws. The said decision is thus illegal in Russia and, therefore, has no legal value outside Russia.

The State corporation DIA has already spent 2.9 billion rubles on trying to have the above-mentioned illegal decision recognised in foreign jurisdictions, thereby causing substantial material prejudice to Mr Pugachev.

Mr Pugachev’s lawyers are currently getting ready to file a claim against DIA for  the compensation of the material prejudice caused to Mr Pugachev by DIA’s illegal actions in various jurisdictions. In 2014 the State corporation DIA pledged, of its own free will, to compensate Mr Pugachev for the prejudice potentially caused to him, within the limit of 75 million US dollars.

The aforementioned pledge was confirmed by the High Court of London on 11 July 2014.


Sergei Pugachev’s press service

The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nice, France, granted Sergei Pugachev’s claim against the Russian Federation

On 29 of January 2019 the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nice, France, granted Sergei Pugachev’s claim against the Russian Federation (represented in this case by a governmental agency).

In 2018 Sergei Pugachev initiated legal action against the Russian Federation before the Court of first instance (Tribunal de Grande Instance) of Nice, on the ground, sustained by his lawyers Anne-Jessica Fauré and Mazvydas Michalauskas, that the governmental agency acting on behalf of the Russian Federation has no right to sue Mr Pugachev in France.

All legal proceedings and actions launched by the Russian authorities against Sergei Pugachev before various jurisdictions are nothing but attempts to prevent the examination of the case filed by Mr Pugachev’s against the Russian Federation before the International Court at The Hague. Indeed, Russia’s actions are aimed at deflecting the attention as well as the intellectual and material resources of Mr Pugachev and his lawyers from the proceedings at The Hague.

On 10 December 2014 Mr Pugachev, faced with the expropriation of this assets by the Russian authorities that began in the early 2000, initiated proceedings against the Russian Federation before the Court at The Hague, based on the bilateral agreement on the protection and promotion of foreign investments concluded between France and the Russian Federation. The claim amounts to 12 billion dollars. Mr Pugachev’s interests are represented in France by the law firm Betto Seraglini.

Notwithstanding various attempts by Russia and its lawyers (White&Case, Hogan Lovells, London) to delay the examination of the case, as well as various claims filed against Mr Pugachev in different jurisdictions, the proceedings at The Hague are progressing in accordance with the established schedule.

The Nice Court ruled that the decision of the Russian court dated 30 April 2015, that condemns Mr Pugachev to pay over one billion dollars, was rendered in blatant violation of the law (the decision was rendered by a single judge, whereas it ought to have been rendered by a panel of three judges). The latter decision of the Russian court is, therefore, illegal in Russia, and furthermore can have no legal consequences outside the territory of the Russian Federation.


Sergei Pugachev’s press service

First round against Russia before the French justice

On 29 November the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nice, the French court of the first instance, held its first hearing in connection with the attempts undertaken by the Russian State corporation to carry out the decision of the Moscow Commercial Court against French citizen and former senator Sergei Pugachev. The Moscow court’s decision was rendered on 30 of April 2015 and declared the Sergei Pugachev’s subsidiary liability.

The Mezhprombank bank, founded by Sergei Pugachev in 1992, was declared bankrupt in 2010. By that time, however, the bank no longer belonged to Sergei Pugachev, who had left the Board of Directors some nine years earlier.

On 30 April 2015 the Moscow Commercial Court issued a ruling that declared Sergei Pugachev, as well as three of the Bank’s managers, responsible for the Bank’s liabilities amounting to over 1 billion euros.

The case was heard by a sole judge, namely I.I. Kleandrov, even though the Russian law prescribes that bankruptcy cases be heard exclusively by a panel of judges. The ruling was issued by Judge Kleandrov after a hearing of about three hours, suggesting that in the course of some 200 minutes the judge was able to analyse 342 volumes of documentary evidence and study over 200 of the Bank’s contracts, to which the representatives of the Russian Federation referred. All the rulings issued by Judge Kleandrov as a sole judge were subsequently cancelled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (decision dated 19 December 2016).

On 29 November Sergei Pugachev’s counsels challenged the competence of the Russian State agency to initiate proceedings against Sergei Pugachev in France, on the grounds that the Russian Federation had failed to comply with a number of compulsory legal requirements, thereby violating French and international law.

Sergei Pugachev’s lawyers also claimed that the interests of an objective and fair trial did not allow to examine the issue of carrying out in France the decision of the Moscow Commercial Court, until the French justice was able to complete the previously initiated enquiry against the managers of the Russian State Agency, and until the arbitral tribunal comprised of distinguished international arbitrators Eduardo Zuleta-Jaramillo, Thomas Clay and Bernardo Cremades, sitting at the Hague International Court, had come to a decision on the violation by the Russian Federation of its international obligations regarding the protection of Sergei Pugachev’s investments in Russia. It should be recalled that in 2015, before any attempts were made to have the decision of the Moscow Commercial Court carried out in France, Sergei Pugachev had initiated arbitration proceedings against the Russian Federation before the Hague International Court for an amount in excess of 12 billion dollars, in connection with the expropriation of his assets in the territory of the Russian Federation and damages caused to him in other jurisdictions, including France. The arbitration court is due to issue a ruling the the course of 2019.

According to David Goldberg from the law firm White&Case, who represents the interests of the Russian Federation before the Hague International Court in the case Pugachev v Russia, “this is Pugachev’s personal dispute with Putin”.

In addition Sergei Pugachev’s lawyers stress that an attempt to have the Russian ruling recognised in France is, of itself, one more element in the grand-scale process of expropriating Pugachev’s assets, which was begun by Putin back in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

It must be said that Russia does not limit itself to strictly legal methods. In 2014 Sergei Pugachev filed a claim before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris for the crimes of extortion, kidnapping and death threats, committed in the territory of the French Republic by a group of persons belonging to the leadership of the Russian State agency. The claim rests on documentary evidence and the investigation is underway, with the claim being examined by investigating judge Charlotte Bilger. After an explosive device was found under former senator Pugachev’s car, only extreme security measures provided by France’s special services have been able to guarantee the safety of Sergei Pugachev and his family.

The vice president of the Court of Nice, Hicham Melhem is expected to render his decision on 29 January 2019, after which it will become clear whether Russia is able to take part in judicial proceedings in the territory of France or whether its claims against Sergei Pugachev will be definitively rejected.

The interests of Sergei Pugachev in France are represented by the law firm De Baecque Fauré Bellec Avocats.

The interests of the Russian Federation are represented by the law firm Hogan Lovells.




The press service of Sergei Pugachev

In connection with the London High Court hearing of October 23 2018

The Russian State is continuing to persecute Mr Pugachev by manipulating the English legal system.

 On October 23 2018 London’s High Court heard the latest stage of the Russian state’s case against Mr Pugachev.

The hearing took place despite the fact that at the moment there is no ruling of the Russian court against Mr Pugachev that has any legal force. This means that the Russian state – and the lawyers representing it in England through Hogan Lovells International LLP law firm — do not have any right to file any lawsuits or applications based on the decisions of the Russians courts in any other jurisdiction.

Moscow’s Arbitration Court has already issued a ruling that cancelled a previous decision finding Mr Pugachev responsible for the bankruptcy of Mezhprombank — a position that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation must now issue a separate judicial order confirming the cancellation of the ruling against him, and Mr Pugachev filed an application with the Supreme Court to do so in September 2018.

The judge hearing the case on October 23 had given Mr Pugachev permission ahead of time to take part in the hearing via videolink from France, where he is now resident, and Mr Pugachev had made all the necessary technical checks in preparation. Despite all these efforts, it was not possible to make a connection with the court on October 23. For an hour, the English court said technical problems were to blame for the lack of connection. But later Judge Price’s clerk, Nichola Pierce, admitted that Judge Price at the last minute – after he had read Mr Pugachev’s statement of defense sent to the court – took the decision not to allow Mr Pugachev to participate in the hearing. During the hearing, Judge Price said that he had acquainted himself with Mr Pugachev’s position and “did not find anything useful in it for the court”. (The Guardian)

In the view of Mr Pugachev and his lawyers, these actions by the English court violate his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights.

The decision of the English court will be appealed.

Press service of Sergei Pugachev